Advertisement

Incorporation of Agent Prompts as Scaffolding of Reflection in an Intelligent Learning Environment

  • Longkai Wu
  • Chee-Kit Looi
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 17)

Abstract

Recent research has emphasized the importance of reflection for students in an intelligent learning environment. But, researchers have not reached a consensus on the most effective ways to design scaffolding to prompt reflection, nor have they accepted a common mechanism that can explain the effects of scaffolding on reflection. Two types of agent prompts to foster reflection are contrasted in this chapter, both from the perspective of a tutee, differing in their specificity. Generic prompts are content-independent tutee questions, aiming at fostering students’ reflection on metacognitive strategies and beliefs regarding their learning-by-teaching activities. Specific prompts, on the other hand, are content-dependent tutee questions that encourage students’ reflection on domain-related and task-specific skills, and articulation of their explanatory responses. This chapter describes the design and effect of these two types of agent prompts, adapted to students’ learning-by-teaching activities, on the learning outcomes, the elicited levels of reflection, and the self-efficacy of the secondary school students.

Keywords

Metacognitive Strategy Instructional Explanation Cognitive Tutor Generic Prompt Agent Tutee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleven, V., Koedinger, K.R.: An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science 26, 147–179 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., Lynch, C.: Supporting self-explanation of argument transcripts: specific v. generic prompts. In: Proceedings of ITS Workshop of Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains, pp. 47–55 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Amulya, J.: What is Reflective Practice? (2004), http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/whatisreflectivepractice.pdf (accessed April 18, 2009)
  4. Argyris, C., Schön, D.: Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. FT Press, Mass (1996)Google Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., Hadwin, A.F.: Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science 33, 367–379 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J.(TAG-V): Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD Environments to AI. In: Feltovich, F. (ed.) Smart Machines in Education, pp. 71–98. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2001)Google Scholar
  7. Brockbank, A., McGill, I.: Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press, Buckingham (1998)Google Scholar
  8. Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., Chang, R.-B., Lin, S.-C.: A new assessment for computer-based concept mapping. Educational Technology & Society 8(3), 138–148 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Chen, N.S., Kinshuk, Wei, C.W., Liu, C.C.: Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on learner’s quality of reflection in an online learning environment. Computers & Education 56(1), 53–64 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, N.S., Wei, C.W., Wu, K.T., Uden, L.: Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education 52(2), 283–291 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, S.W., Lin, S.C., Chang, K.E.: Attributed concept maps: fuzzy integration and fuzzy matching. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics 31(5) (2001)Google Scholar
  12. Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., LaVancher, C.: Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science 18, 39–477 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J.: Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools 23, 175–186 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., Kulik, C.C.: Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal 19(2), 237–248 (1982)Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, E.B., Brown, A.L., Rivkin, I.D.: The effect of instructional explanations on formal learning from scientific texts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 6(4), 347–365 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornford, I.R.: Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 21, 57–368 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Intrinsic rewards and emergent motivation. In: Lepper, M.R., Greene, D. (eds.) The Hidden Costs of Reward. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1978)Google Scholar
  18. Davis, E.A.: Scaffolding students’ reflection for science learning. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley, CA (1998)Google Scholar
  19. Davis, E.A.: Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed Prompts. The Journal of The Learning Sciences 12(1), 91–142 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, E.A., Linn, M.: Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22(8), 819–837 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gama, C.: Metacognition in Interactive Learning Environments: The Reflection Assistant Model. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 668–677. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gartner, A., Kohler, M., Riessman, F.: Children teach children: Learning by teaching. Harper & Row, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  23. Ge, X., Land, S.M.: A conceptual framework of scaffolding ill-structured problem solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development 52(2), 5–27 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., Papanikolaou, K.A., Grigoriadou, M.: An adaptive feedback framework to support reflection, guiding and tutoring. In: Magoulas, G., Chen, S. (eds.) Advances in Web-based Education: Personalized Learning Environments, pp. 178–202. Information Science Publishing, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graesser, A.C., Person, N.K., Magliano, J.P.: Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one Tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology 9, 495–522 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graesser, A.C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., Harter, D.: Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine 22, 39–51 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. Hmelo, C., Day, R.: Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers & Education 32, 151–164 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz, S., O’Donnell, G., Kay, H.: An approach to analyzing the role and structure of reflective dialogue. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education 11, 320–333 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. Katzlberger, T.: Learning by teaching agents. PhD Thesis, Vanderbilt University (2005)Google Scholar
  30. King, A., Staffieri, A., Adelgais, A.: Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 90(1), 134–152 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kornilakis, H., Grigoriadou, M., Papanikolaou, K.A., Gouli, E.: Using WordNet to support interactive concept map construction. In: ICALT (2004)Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, D., Udell, W.: The development of argument skills. Child Development 74(5), 1245–1260 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leelawong, K.: Using the learning-by-teaching paradigm to design intelligent learning environments. PhD Thesis, Vanderbilt University (2005)Google Scholar
  34. Mason, B., Bruning, R.: Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us (2003), http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html
  35. Moon, J.: A Handbook of reflective and experiential learning. Routledge, London (2004)Google Scholar
  36. Moore, J., Whitfield, V.F.: Musing: A way to inform and inpire pedagogy throught self-reflection. The Reading Teacher 61(7), 586–588 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mory, E.: Feedback research. In: Jonassen, D.H. (ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 919–956. Simon & Schuster Maxmillan, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  38. Ortiz, J.: Reflective practice and student learning in the introductory interpersonal communication course. Technical report, Maricopa Institute for Learning (2006)Google Scholar
  39. Peverly, S.T., Wood, R.: The effects of adjunct questions and feedback on improving the reading comprehension skills of learning-disabled adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology 26(1), 25–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pintrich, P.A., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., McKeachie, W.J.: A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Technical report, The University of Michigan (1993)Google Scholar
  41. Roscoe, R.D., Chi, M.T.H.: The influence of the tutee in learning by peer tutoring. In: Forbus, K., Gentner, D., Regier, T. (eds.) Proceedings of AMCSS, Chicago, pp. 1179–1184 (2004)Google Scholar
  42. Roscoe, R.D., Chi, M.T.H.: Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research 77(4), 534–574 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rothkopf, E.: Learning from written instructive materials: An exploration of the control of inspection by test-like events. American Educational Research Journal 3, 241–249 (1966)Google Scholar
  44. Sandoval, W.: Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students´ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schön, D.A.: Teaching artistry through reflection-in-action. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  46. Schraw, G.: Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science 26, 113–125 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Surbeck, E., Han, E.P., Moyer, J.E.: Assessing reflective responses in journals. Educational Leadership 48(6), 25–27 (1991)Google Scholar
  48. VanLehn, K., Jones, R.M., Chi, M.T.H.: A model of the self- explanation effect. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(1), 1–60 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinstein, C.E., Meyer, D.K.: Cognitive learning strategies and college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 45, 15–26 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xie, K., Bradshaw, A.C.: Using question prompts to support ill-structured problem solving in online peer collaborations. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning 4(2), 148–165 (2008)Google Scholar
  51. Zimmerman, B.J.: Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1), 82–91 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Education1 Nanyang WalkSingapore

Personalised recommendations